Summerland Senior Attacked

[-fluffy-]

Fact is there tends to be very low success rates for AA/NA. However those that subscribe to their doctrine do well.

A quick comment here. Statistics claiming low success rates for AA generally include people who become involved with the program at the request or insistence of someone else, be it the court system, family or friends. These people usually aren't ready to take responsibility for their own addictions, a step crucial for the success of a twelve step based recovery program. To put it another way, they aren't there for themselves, they are there for someone else, and their chances of success are grim. Success rates among those who 'subscribe to the doctrine' and are willing to do the work involved are quite high. You have to want it.

[Madhue]

A quick comment here. Statistics claiming low success rates for AA generally include people who become involved with the program at the request or insistence of someone else, be it the court system, family or friends.

Like say interventions? A practice that many 12 steppers will take part in...

Success rates among those who 'subscribe to the doctrine' and are willing to do the work involved are quite high. You have to want it.

If only that was the crux of the matter, unfortunatly its not. Here is some rather critical information on AA. I'll admit some of it is slightly over the top but there is some good information within there
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

Again, there are those that will find it serves a purpose and meets an individual's needs for that I say great, but AA/NA should not been seen as a one size fits all, it simply doesn't speak to everyones purpose and needs . Even the "Big Book" states "There are those too who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders" who will have difficulty achieving sobriety, or may never achieve sobriety. They base this on difficulty in being honest however someone who is delusional may be honest in saying they see little green men and wrap themselves in tin foil and use drugs to disrupt the voices in their heads.

AA/NA like I said before works some but can not nor should it be seen as the 'silver bullet' for dealing with addictions we have to be willing to look and include other forms of assistance.

[-fluffy-]

You were right Madhue, that article was certainly over the top, I wonder what sort of experience the author had that turned him so sour on twelve step programs.

If one were to follow his reasoning, with a mere five percent success rate, that would mean that 95 percent of the world's total AA membership is going to start drinking again?

I suspect we could argue this one blue in the face, but reliable statistics on an organization that holds a tradition of anonymity amongst its membership is going to be pretty hard to come by.

[acidrain]

After thinking last night of all this debate about addictions and such I wondered why the judicial system takes into account the suspect's background long before the personal story of the victim.

For instance, is the person who did this going to get more time because he terrorized a senior citizen that did absolutely nothing to provoke the attack? What about a child who gets molested? Some of our citizens that need the greatest amount of protection get the least amount of justice.

I find it ironic that the very people who could allegedly have all sorts of disorders have the basic understanding in knowing who would be the weakest to exploit.

[Crying-Angel]

As a person with Bi-polar and Anxiety disorder I always find it interesting to listen to people talk about mental illness. No matter how many people you talk to, or how many things you read, unless you go through some of the deepest depths of how your mind can alter who you are...you can never really understand it.
You have to understand that when your brain slowly begins to change, you do not realize that there is anything wrong. Your personality slowly changes, what you used to care about doesn't matter anymore. But you don't KNOW that this is wrong! You are puzzled at people's reactions to you. What is up with them? I'm just me.
If you are lucky, you eventually get help. The first signs of my desease came in my teens however I didn't hit my Manic period until I was in my mid twenties. I have been battling this for the past 10 years. Keeping it under control. It is something I will have to continue to battle with.
But I have to tell you. I don't remember a lot of the time spent in my manic time but what I do remember is absolutely terrifying. The fact that I could become someone so opposite to what I was and am today and not know the difference is unreal. But I can't even explain it to my doctor's.

To address the point about how sick people know who to target...a lot of mental illness is not about intelligence. Mental illness and mental disability are two different things.

People often don't understand what really bad depression is all about. At it's worst it is more than just feeling hopelessness and despair. It is extremely painful. Have you ever cried so hard that you had a head ache or that your whole body ached after? You ache all the time. Alcohol or drugs can help to alleviate that pain. It makes you forget for awhile, then it comes back and what happens? Unfortunately, they will become addicted. Now they have just compounded the problems.
So, you have a person with some kind of mental disorder, not thinking straight, the lines between right and wrong are blurred and they are also taking a mind altering substance...then we wonder why they do things that don't make sense?

Anyhow...just wanted to add another perspective

[Madhue]

If one were to follow his reasoning, with a mere five percent success rate, that would mean that 95 percent of the world's total AA membership is going to start drinking again?

No it means for the bulk of the population AA/NA is not an effective means of dealing with addictions. There are a number of Folks however small population that it does speak to.

While much of like I said was over the top if you sift through you'll see a number of reports he is quoting and that AA/NA has rather limited in its success rates. In fact some research such as the study "A Controlled Experiment on the Use of Court Probation for Drunk Arrests". Keith S. Ditman, M.D., George G. Crawford, LL.B., Edward W. Forgy, Ph.D., Herbert Moskowitz, Ph.D., and Craig MacAndrew, Ph.D. noted the following...

A study from 1979 found a correlation between AA and an increased rate of binge drinking. After several months of participating in AA, the alcoholics in AA were doing five times as much binge drinking as a control group that got no treatment at all, and nine times as much binge drinking as another group that got Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. Brandsma argues that teaching people that they are alcoholics who are powerless over alcohol becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.[54] Ditman et al. (1967) found a correlation between participation in AA and an increase in the alcoholics' rate of multiple arrests for public drunkenness.[55] Research has indicated that alcoholics reporting a lack of motivation reverted to their drinking levels soon after leaving clinical treatment.[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics ... dsma_et_al

After thinking last night of all this debate about addictions and such I wondered why the judicial system takes into account the suspect's background long before the personal story of the victim.

There is a victim impact statement the victim can make to take into account what that act has done to impact the victim, however as the judicial system is set up people are not charged with crimes against victims but crimes against the Crown (the Queen) and the Canadian Criminal Code.

I find it ironic that the very people who could allegedly have all sorts of disorders have the basic understanding in knowing who would be the weakest to exploit.

I don't think that is a very fair assessment Armed Police are attacked also by people with delusional conduct. There is no real substance to your claim.

Anyhow...just wanted to add another perspective

Some of the best insight posted in this thread IMHO thanks for sharing.

We as a society have a responsibility to all citizens, I find it rather arrogant we seek Justice for one persons actions that clearly wronged another person but we do turn that same level of ownership to seeking justice for those being victimized by systems that are not responding to the needs of those with mental health and substance use issues.

[-fluffy-]

I still maintain that the stats posted regarding AA success rates are highly suspect, and show a definite bias on the part of the author(s). Who is being counted? Someone goes to a couple of meetings, finds nothing that appeals to him/her and heads back out to drink again. Is this a counted as a failure of the AA program? To me this was a non-starter. If someone doesn't take the time to seriously attempt the twelve step recovery process then to me that can't be counted as a failure, yet I suspect that most of those claiming a 5% success rate are counting people who never actually worked the steps.

[Madhue]

I still maintain that the stats posted regarding AA success rates are highly suspect, and show a definite bias on the part of the author(s). Who is being counted? Someone goes to a couple of meetings, finds nothing that appeals to him/her and heads back out to drink again. Is this a counted as a failure of the AA program? To me this was a non-starter. If someone doesn't take the time to seriously attempt the twelve step recovery process then to me that can't be counted as a failure, yet I suspect that most of those claiming a 5% success rate are counting people who never actually worked the steps.

We there many clinically based studies that have come to similar results. IN fact there are very few reports I have come in contact with that suggest that AA can boast large scale changes and have a success rate that doesn't exceed 10-15%. I also think that suggesting that only those only populations that 'buy into the program' see success is a bit of a cop out there are other programs that deal with the same population that post better results.

But again that is not to take away from what AA can bring to their followers, for those that find it to be what they need they do benefit from it it. But it should not been seen as the only tool in the box, there are number of others to choose from.

[-fluffy-]

We there many clinically based studies that have come to similar results. IN fact there are very few reports I have come in contact with that suggest that AA can boast large scale changes and have a success rate that doesn't exceed 10-15%.

I'm still wondering about the validity of studies that claim to examine an organization as loosely structured and shrouded in anonymity as AA. There are just too many questions that go unanswered. A lumping together of different programs, such as combining stats from AA and NA can be misleading as well. While drugs and alcohol can both be considered 'addictions' they are two different beasts in the same forest, and stats pertaining to the two programs are best viewed separately for clarity.

AA itself performs membership surveys every three years based on a sample of approximately 7500 members in Canada and the US. The results are available on the aa.org website but a couple of interesting excerpts are:

The average length of sobriety among members is over 8 years.
actual breakdown is:

sober less than a year - 26%
sober 1-5 years - 24%
sober 5-10 years - 14%
sober more than 10 years - 36%

Average age of an AA member is 48 yrs.
actual breakdown is:

under 21 yrs. - 1.5%
21 - 30 - 7.9%
31 - 40 - 18.2%
41 - 50 - 33.0%
51 - 60 - 23.1%
61 - 70 - 11.5%
over 70 - 4.8%



This would indicate that an adult's chance of success is greater than that of a young person but again, what sort of measuring tape are we using here?

Who are the people that are finding their way into the surveys and studies taken outside the AA program? Are people who have achieved lengthy sobriety with the help of AA being consulted in these studies, or are they abiding by the AA traditions of anonymity and non-involvement with outside issues and organizations?

With 36% of total membership (currently a little over two million worldwide) having achieved over ten years sobriety, would this indicate a 5% success rate? Or even a 10 - 15% success rate? Or is ten years sober not enough to be counted as a 'success'? If we are to go with the 5% success rate results of some studies, does that mean there are forty million 'failures' walking around out there? And how long were these 'failures' members of AA, and what kind of effort did they put it?

You see, it's hard to tell isn't it? The stats amassed from the actual membership are obviously in conflict with studies from outside the program but there are serious questions regarding the make-up of the sample used by the outside studies.

On a side note, a big thing in AA's favour is that it is 100% self-supporting, not a single tax dollar is spent on keeping it running. Not bad for a bunch of yahoos who had trouble finding their own car in the hotel parking lot a few years back.

[Madhue]

I'm still wondering about the validity of studies that claim to examine an organization as loosely structured and shrouded in anonymity as AA.

I have more faith in third party clinical studies over internal surveys. In fact most educated people do. Anyone can tell you that supporting your own values with your own research and diagnostic tools conducted internally is not a scientific method and is considered tainted. There are only a handful of studies that suggest AA/NA as an effective means of managing addictions and even they only highlight aspects of what AA/NA offers.

Again I'll point out that AA/NA for those that can subscribe to that doctrine it is effective but it's not the only ship in the port, Harm Reduction Strategies , Cognitive/ Behavior Modification programs, therapeutic counseling, medication and so on. Quite often and all too often its not the drug that is the problem but what a person views as a solution to their problems. Sometimes too much effort is place don the substance not the underline issues. I'm not saying that AA/NA doesn't meet the needs of those who see value in it however, there are other forms of assistance that are equal of have proven t have higher levels of value and it's important when folks address issue such as addictions we are open to all possibilities.

[-fluffy-]

I have more faith in third party clinical studies over internal surveys. In fact most educated people do.

I would think that most educated people would see the importance of having clearly defined sampling parameters when undertaking any statistical study. The studies you have cited fail to do this.

I'm basing my observations on the hundreds of AA meetings I have attended myself, and I just can't see a 95% failure rate. I see lots of people who come to a meeting or two and then disappear, but as these people never really took the time to participate in the process, then they can hardly count as a failure. Maybe I'm just one of your lucky 5% Madhue, but I don't think so. I don't think the studies you mentioned were at all objective. Someone, for whatever reason, started with a presumption that AA doesn't work and set out to gather stats that supported that claim. This is not the scientific method of which you spoke. The sampling is also highly suspect. I think it is more than likely that the stats assembled to support a 5% success rate theory included mostly people who may have only attended one or two meetings and couldn't get in the game.

Given the choice between believing a study of questionable veracity, and believing what I have seen with my own eyes, I'll go with the obvious.

[Madhue]

I would think that most educated people would see the importance of having clearly defined sampling parameters when undertaking any statistical study. The studies you have cited fail to do this.

maybe read the last one again.

I'm basing my observations on the hundreds of AA meetings I have attended myself, and I just can't see a 95% failure rate. I see lots of people who come to a meeting or two and then disappear, but as these people never really took the time to participate in the process, then they can hardly count as a failure. Maybe I'm just one of your lucky 5% Madhue, but I don't think so.

keep in mind I coughed up an extra 10%... claiming 10-15%... other studies boasted a lower success rate.

I think if anything you have done you have simply illustrated my point more clearly, a few folks come in and are able to subscribe to the philosophy, others come in and go out. Feeling that message and how its presented is not for them. Hopefully they were able to find other forms of help. For those whom it works for it seems to work, I'm not trying to take anything away from it working for those people, however a vast majority of people find benefit from other means.

I don't think the studies you mentioned were at all objective.

In the many years of AA existence don't you think that they would be able to conjure up a high volume of clinical based studies that support the program in whole?

Lets take it one step further.... if there was enough evidence to support AA/NA as being highly effective 12 step programs would be adopted as mainstream treatment. More over insurance companies that don't like spitting a dime out unless they need would not endorse treatment programs..... and yet they do.

Given the choice between believing a study of questionable veracity, and believing what I have seen with my own eyes, I'll go with the obvious.

Sometime what we choose to believe clouds our judgment, and thats what I am gleaning from your posts, you subscribe to it's doctrine and find value in it and I say good for you, however I think you have excluded the possibility that there are many options for us to address substance use and addictions and the fact is there are and many yield higher results than AA. That doesn't take anything away from AA but only suggests there are options and alternatives.

[-fluffy-]

I think if anything you have done you have simply illustrated my point more clearly, a few folks come in and are able to subscribe to the philosophy, others come in and go out.

This was my original point. Are those that come in and go out to be considered failures? I agree that AA is not for everyone, there is discipline and self-honesty involved that many are simply not capable of. Is this a failure of the AA program or a shortcoming of the individual involved?

One of the reasons that there isn't a lot of info around is that it is a tradition of the AA membership not to become involved in outside issues and/or organization. Their main focus is to stay sober, and help others do the same. The organization purposely avoids contact that does not directly benefit this main focus. This in itself is reason to question the validity of studies that come out against AA.

I don't claim that AA is the only way to deal with a drinking problem, that would be more than a little arrogant. But I do dispute claims that it has a dismal success rate among those who 'subscribe to the philosophy'.

There are a over two million members who didn't take a drink today, that's got to count for something.

[Madhue]

I agree that AA is not for everyone, there is discipline and self-honesty involved that many are simply not capable of. Is this a failure of the AA program or a shortcoming of the individual involved?

no not necessarily people may just not subscribe to the AA dogma, you seem to struggle with that concept. It has nothing to do with self discipline or honesty. That argument is rather ridiculous in fact one could argue that the founders of AA Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith were simply not honest enough or disciplined in their original treatment with a shrink.

One of the reasons that there isn't a lot of info around is that it is a tradition of the AA membership not to become involved in outside issues and/or organization.

Possibly but since AA has been around since the 1930's and people have observed them and conducted a battery of assessments and studies on AA and its practices there is a great deal of data.

I don't claim that AA is the only way to deal with a drinking problem, that would be more than a little arrogant. But I do dispute claims that it has a dismal success rate among those who 'subscribe to the philosophy'.

You have had the opportunity to provide studies or third party research suggesting otherwise and have not.

There are a over two million members who didn't take a drink today, that's got to count for something.

In its own way it does, in other ways not so much it depends on how a person is willing to view it. Ultimately is the user who chooses their way out and their are a number of options, being open to as many as possible offers a higher degree of success.

[Kelownian832]

One thing that I think that really needs to be addressed is how many alcoholics relapse. Many people are able to get sober and stay sober for periods of time, even years at a time, but nearly all of them relapse at some point no matter what treatment they receive. Even when they are given the "tools" or skills to cope with their illness. Recovery takes a lifetime and is day to day. I wouldn't take stock in some survey since AA is anonymous, I haven't the foggiest clue as to why someone would think they could generate an accurate survey pertaining to AA, unless it was a survey done from AA itself. There are so many more alcoholics who never seek out or get help at all. Alcohol addiction has ruined lives and families everywhere. Ironically enough many people with mental illness self "medicate" which is where a whole new set of problems arise. Why is there no resources there immediately when someone asks. When they get to the point where they are asking for help and they are referred to one place, then another and no one is actually handling the mental health issues in this province nor the alcohol addictions and drug addictions. So I fear it will all get much worse before it gets better.